Consequentialism, but only if you have a clue about cause and effect. The other two rely on 3rd parties having more of a clue, which often isn't the case, and can be derailed by special interests, or even special interests from ancient history. Consequentialism can also be derailed by extremely special interests grading the consequences, but it's all about taking responsibility for your actions rather than passing it off.

Herbert Mullin was a mentally ill serial killer who killed 13 people between 1972-73 because he saw the ghost of his father told him that California would be destroyed by a giant earthquake unless mother nature was appeased by human sacrifice.

Would you say he was a good person (since he thought he was doing the right thing) or a bad person?

That is an interesting moral dilemma. I'm going to go with "good", because his issues prevented him from realizing that what he was doing didn't actually help anyone, and the motive wasn't for selfish reasons like feeling power over people or sadism like most serial murderers.

Art Vandelay

If he knows full well what the risks are, I'd argue that he's not stupid. If he actively wants to do it, rather than doing it in spite of being utterly terrified, I'd also argue that he's not brave. So I'd say he's most likely neither.

In your opinion, what do you think is the ultimate solution to racism?